This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
I don't like this article. It is like copying the whole Ars Goetia literature into Wikipedia. Somebody needs to decide whether to make this article an article of its own, or to make this article a list with link of all of the demons to a separate page.
Personally I prefer to make this article a list, with links to different demon. Some demons has a much larger culture influenced in it, such as Bael and Amon, which can be a separate article of its own. --Rochelimit (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this article looks like one of the thousands of web pages by wanna be elite occultists plagiarising work into their own grimoire. A simple list, maybe with minor cultural notes (eg Babylonian, Sumerian etc) all properly referenced with named sources. Many of the demons do have their own entries so this paraphrase and restructure is ridiculous.Czarnibog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This document is poorly sources and frequently unsourced. Many of the entries make mention of "other authors" and "other sources" without identifying the source. This list mixes demonic names and descriptions from sources other then the Ars Goetia, which is the subject of the article. These should be seperate lists. This article needs to be made a list with links of all of the demons to individual pages. The individual entries can give properly cited information from multiple sources for demons mentioned in more than one reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.69.43 (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it'd be alright to change the article to "List of Goetic demons," and include not only the demons listed in the Ars Goetia and Weyer's Pseudomonarchia Daemonum (including the missing Pruflas, whose stubby article would be redirected to here), but also related works such as the Officium Spirituum, le Livre des Esperitz, and the Codex Latinus Monacensis, which feature a great deal of overlap with the Ars Goetia. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking on it a little more, and almost putting in a report at WP:NORN, I've come to the conclusion that such a move should be alright unless good reason is given otherwise. The sources I have discuss all the books and spirits involved in relation to the Lesser Key of Solomon, and generally support the concept of "Goetia" not merely as the title of the first book of the Lesser Key of Solomon, but rather as a sub-genre of spell books that is eponymous to the aforementioned book. This in turn is already reflected on this site's separation of the Lesser Key of Solomon from Goetia as a word used independently of the LKoS. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=small}
